TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee. Merely because the AO treated the amount of income already offered differently from the one portrayed by the assessee, cannot in our considered opinion be a cause for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro products [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] has held that no penalty should be imposed when the assessee adopts a bona fide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deletion of penalty. - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 1684/PUN/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-8-2020 - R. S. Syal , Vice President And S. S. Viswanethra Ravi , Member ( J ) For the Appellant : S. P. Walimbe ORDER R.S. Syal, Vice President This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order dated 30-09-2016 passed by the CIT(A)-14, Mumbai deleting the penalty amounting to ₹ 1,6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was accordingly paid. The AO treated the gain arising from the transfer of such land as Business income instead of long term capital gain as offered. It is a case of difference of opinion between the assessee and the AO on the facts already disclosed by the assessee. Merely because the AO treated the amount of income already offered differently from the one portrayed by the assessee, cannot in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen from the impugned order that the assessee incurred foreign tour expenses for conducting meetings with cement dealers of India Cement Ltd. and Visaka Industries Ltd., for which it was acting as C F agent. These expenses included some amount spent on minor sons and dau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
